Section 132 of the Income Tax Act

Income-tax Act, 2025: ss.247, 249, 251

Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 corresponds to section 247 (Search and seizure), section 249 (Reasons not to be disclosed) and section 251 (Copying, extraction, retention and release of books of account and documents seized or requisitioned) of the Income-tax Act, 2025.

Read section 247 of the 2025 ActRead section 249 of the 2025 ActRead section 251 of the 2025 Act

Correspondence checked against the ICAI tabular mapping of the two Acts and the BharatTax.co section commentary.

The decision most relied on for Section 132 is National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 383), cited in 5,834 of the 14,598 judgments on BharatTax that turn on this section.

Leading authorities on Section 132

National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT
229 ITR 383 · 1998 · Supreme Court
5,834
citing judgments

Appellate authorities can consider new claims and additional grounds if the relevant facts are already on record. The purpose of assessment is to correctly determine tax liability, allowing both parties to raise issues.

CIT v. Kabul Chawla
380 ITR 573 · 2016 · High Court
3,235
citing judgments

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

CIT v. Vegetable Products Ltd.
88 ITR 192 · 1973 · Supreme Court
2,664
citing judgments

When two equally plausible interpretations of a taxing provision are possible, or when conflicting views exist from non-jurisdictional High Courts, the interpretation that favors the assessee must be adopted.

Pr. CIT v. Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd.
149 Taxmann.com 399 · 2023 · Supreme Court
2,379
citing judgments

An assessment under section 153A is without jurisdiction if there is an absence of incriminating material for an unabated assessment year.

CIT v. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd.
374 ITR 645 · 2015 · High Court
1,823
citing judgments

In Section 153A proceedings, the scope of assessment extends to abated proceedings, enabling an assessee to raise fresh legal claims that could have been made in regular assessment proceedings.

CIT v. Sinhgad Technical Education Society
397 ITR 344 · 2017 · Supreme Court
1,589
citing judgments

For assessments under Section 153C, a notice is legally unsustainable if there is no incriminating material correlated to the specific assessment years for which reassessment is sought.

CIT v. Simit P. Sheth
356 ITR 451 · 2013 · High Court
1,465
citing judgments

Additions for alleged bogus purchases should be restricted to the profit element, not the entire turnover. The profit element is often estimated at 12.5% of the purported bogus purchases.

Jute Corporation of India Ltd. v. CIT
187 ITR 688 · 1991 · Supreme Court
1,372
citing judgments

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) possesses co-terminus powers with the Assessing Officer and can direct the Assessing Officer to perform actions he failed to do, but cannot introduce a new source of income in the assessment. The appellate assessment must be confined to the items of income that were the subject matter of the original assessment.

Andaman Timber Industries v. CCE
281 CTR 241 · 2015 · Supreme Court
1,335
citing judgments

An assessee must be given an opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements are relied upon for adverse findings. Failure to provide this opportunity is a serious flaw rendering the order a nullity.

Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia
395 ITR 526 · 2017 · High Court
1,226
citing judgments

In search assessments under Section 153A, additions to income are permissible only if incriminating material is found during the search; in the absence of such material, completed assessments cannot be disturbed. A statement recorded under Section 132(4) and later retracted may not, on its own, constitute sufficient incriminating evidence for making additions.

Judgments on Section 132

Pawan Chandak, Madhya Pradesh vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 272/MUM/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2013-14 Pawan Chandak Dcit,Central Circle 2(4), 8Th 205, Royal Park, 19/3, New Vs. Floor,Cgo Complex,Pratishtha Palasia, Indore, Madhya Bhavan, Marine Lines, M.K. Rd. Pradesh Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Achpc8310N Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, Dr Assessee By : Mr . Devendra Jain, Ar Date Of Hearing :01/04/2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019 Order Per N.K. Pradhan, Am This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee. The Relevant Assessment Year Is 2013-14. The Appeal Is Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-48, Mumbai [In Short ‘Cit (A)’] & Arises Out Of The Penalty Levied U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (The ‘Act’). 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Sustaining Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.10,36,200/- U/S 271Aab Of The Act. 3. Briefly Stated, The Facts Are That A Search & Seizure Action U/S 132 Was Carried Out By The Revenue In The Case Of M/S. Gold Sukh Safety Vaults Ltd. On 08.11.2012 & The Assessee, Who Is Proprietor Of M/S. Mangalam Courier, Was Also Covered. During The Course Of Search On 08.11.2012, Cash

For Appellant: Mr . Devendra Jain, ARFor Respondent: Mr. Abi Rama Kartikiyen, DR
Section 131Section 132Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271ASection 274